COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Chie f Judge Fitzpatr ick, Judges Co leman and Bray Argued at Rich mond, Virginia

STEVEN LAMONTE STAN LEY, JR., S/K/A STEVEN LAMONT ST ANLEY, JR., A/K/A STEVEN DUNFORD MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 1902-98-2 JUDGE SAM W. COLEMAN III DECEMBER 28, 1999 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY W. Park Lemmond, Jr ., Judge Designate (Margaret An n Englisby; Deni s C. Englisby; Englisby & Englisby, on brief), for appellant. Appellant submitting on brief. (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General; Kathleen B. Martin, Assist ant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. Appellee submitting on brief.

*Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code § 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication. Steven Lamont Stan ley was convic ted in a bench trial of robbery in violation of Code § 18.2-58. On appeal, Stan ley argues that the evidence wa s insufficient to support th e conviction because the acts consti tuting the required el ement of violence did not precede or were not concomitan t with the taking of the property of anothe r from her person or pres ence. We di sagree and affirm the conviction.- 2 - BACKGROUND Patricia Aumiller, the victim, wa s approaching a pay phone located at the entrance of a grocery store when she noticed a man and woman at an adjoining pay phon e. While Aumill er dialed the phone, the woman grabbe d Aumiller's purse from her right shoulder, and as Aumiller turned around, the ma n struck her in the face. The couple then fled with Aumill er's purse. Au miller estimated that approximately two to three seconds elap sed between the time her purse was take n and when she was struck . Although Aumiller stated that Stan ley looked "identical" to the man who st ruck her, she could not posi tively identify Stanle y as the pe rpetrator. Janet Bookman testified that as she left th e grocery store that evening, she noti ced two people step on to the sidewalk and run over to the pay phones. She watched as one person picked up the phone receiv er and pretende d to use the ph one. Bookman testified that the man walked towards her and passed within a foot of her. Bookma n continued to wa lk to her car an d as she looked back toward the pay phones, she sa w the man strike Aumiller, hitting her twic e in the face, and grabher purse. Bookman observed the man and woman run of f together behi nd the grocery store passing the stolen purse back and forth. Bo okman later identified Stanley in a photographic lineup and at trial as the man at the grocery store who struck Aumiller and stol e her purse.- 3 - ANALYSIS Stanley argues that the evidence failed to prove that the force or violence prec eded or was co ncomitant with the taking of Aumiller's purse becaus e two to three second s elapsed be tween the two events. Stanley also argues that the evid ence failed to prove that he was th e perpetrator be cause Aumiller's testimony was completely contradicted byBookman's te stimony. On review, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing part y and grant to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom. See Commonwealthv. Jenkins , 255 Va. 516, 521, 499 S.E.2d 263, 265 (1998). "The cred ibility of the witnesses and the weight accorded the evid ence are matters solely for the fact finder wh o has the opport unity to see and hear that evidence as it is presented." Sandov al v. Commonwealth , 20 Va. App. 133, 138, 455 S. E.2d 730, 732 (1995). "The judgment of a trial court sittin g without a jury is entitled to the same weight as a jury verdict, an d will not be disturbe d on appeal unless plainly wrong or without evidence to support it ." Beck v. Commonwealth , 2 Va. App. 170, 172, 342 S.E.2d 642, 643 (1986). Robbery is "the taki ng, with intent to st eal, of th e personal property of anot her, from his pe rson or in his presence, against his will, by violence or intimidation ." Pierce v. Commonwealth , 205 Va. 528, 532, 138 S.E.2d 28, 31 (1964). "The act of violence or intimidation employ ed must precede or be concomitan t with the- 4 - taking." Beard v. Commonwealth , 19 Va. App. 359, 362, 451 S.E.2d 698, 700 (1994) (citin g Jones v. Commonwealth , 13 Va. App. 566, 572, 414 S.E.2d 193, 196 (1992)). "The touching or violation necessary to prove [rob bery] may be indirect , but cannot result merely from the force associat ed with the taking ." Bivins v. Commonwealth , 19 Va. App. 750, 752, 454 S.E.2d 741, 742 (1995) (citation omit ted). Similarly, violence resorted to merely to retain possession already acquired or to effect escape will be insufficient to supply the force necessar y to suppor t a robbery conviction. See Manson v. Commonwealth , 200 Va. 253, 256, 105 S.E.2d 149, 151 (1958). Where, as here , the facts establ ish that the vi olence against Aumiller and the tres pass to her "'combine in a continuing, unbroken sequence of events, the robb ery itself continues as well for the same period of time.' " Quesinberry v. Commonwealth , 241 Va. 364, 373, 402 S.E. 2d 218, 224 (1991) (c itation omit ted); see

Person v. Commonwealth , 10 Va. App. 36, 40, 389 S.E.2d 907, 910 (1990). Stanley struck Aumiller within two to three se conds after her purse was remo ved from her shoulder and while Au miller was trying to resist the taking. See Beard , 19 Va. App. at 363, 451 S.E.2d at 700 (f inding that "asportation of st olen property continues and is not complete until the ta ker severs the property from the absolute co ntrol and posses sion of the victim"); see also Jones v. Commonwealth , 26 Va. App. 736, 49 6 S.E.2d 668 (1998)- 5 - (finding defendant guil ty of robbery where defendant "jerked" the victim around to fa ce him before taki ng her purse); cf. Winn v. Commonwealth , 21 Va. App. 179, 462 S.E.2d 911 (1 995) (reversing defendant's robb ery conviction where de fendant "very strongly" removed victim 's purse from her should er). On these facts, Stanley's stri king Aumiller was part of the force us ed to take Aumiller's property an d was sufficient ly close in ti me and effect to be concomitant with the taking. When weighing the ev idence, the fact finder is not required to accept entirely ei ther party's account of the facts. See Barrett v. Commonwealth , 231 Va. 102, 107, 341 S.E.2d 190, 193 (1986). The fact fi nder may reject that which it finds implausible, yet acce pt other parts whic h it finds to be believable. See Durham v. Commonwealth , 214 Va. 166, 169, 198 S.E.2d 603, 606 (1973). Here, the fact that Aumiller could not positively identify St anley as her assailan t did not render the evidence insufficient. Rath er, the lack of a positive identification by the victim was a fact to be weighed by the court. Bookman, a witness who observed the even ts and passed close to Stanley, posi tively identified him as the assa ilant. Although Bookman's and Aumiller's recitation of the even t differed in some degree, the fa ct finder is not boun d by either's version and could believ e that which is more favorable to the- 6 - Commonwealth. See Eaton v. Commonwealth , 240 Va. 236, 249-50, 397 S.E.2d 385, 393 (1990). Accordingly, we af firm Stanley's convic tion for robbery. Affirmed.